Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4-5 or WHO performance status of 3-4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (<40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·9 percentage points [95% CI -13·8 to 4·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference -4·1 percentage points [-13·2 to 5·0]; pnon-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference -15·5 percentage points [95% CI -24·5 to -6·5]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. INTERPRETATION: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. FUNDING: Ethicon UK (Johnson & Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring of the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and in high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared to LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 minutes,P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI>25 kg/m2, previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with less conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. METHODS/DESIGN: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-ß), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. DISCUSSION: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

Minimally invasive vessel-preservation spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy-how I do it, tips and tricks and clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) has emerged as a parenchyma-preserving approach and has become the standard treatment for pancreatic benign and low-grade malignant lesions. Nevertheless, minimally invasive SPDP is still technically challenging, especially when vessel preservation is intended. This study aims to describe the technique and outcomes of laparoscopic (LSPDP) and robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (RSPDP) with intended vessel preservation, highlighting the important tips and tricks to overcome technical obstacles and optimize surgical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing LSPDP and RSPDP with intended vessel preservation by a single surgeon in two different centers. A video demonstrating both surgical techniques is attached. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SPDP were included of which 88% underwent LSPDP and 12% RSPDP. Splenic vessels were preserved in 37 patients (74%) while a salvage vessel-resecting technique was performed in 13 patients (26%). The average surgery time was 178 ± 74 min for the vessel-preserving and 188 ± 57 for the vessel-resecting technique (p = 0.706) with an estimated blood loss of 100 mL in both groups (p = 0.663). The overall complication rate was 46% (n = 23) with major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III) observed in 14% (n = 7) of the patients. No conversions occurred. The median length of hospital stay was 4 days. CONCLUSION: This study presented the results after minimally invasive SPDP with intended vessel preservation by a highly experienced pancreatic surgeon. It provided tips and tricks to successfully accomplish a minimally invasive SPDP, which can contribute to quick patient rehabilitation and optimal postoperative results.

Pancreatic Anastomosis in Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Different Surgical Techniques.

Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (R-PD) may provide challenges but potential benefits for pancreatic-enteric anastomosis fashioning. Despite numerous trials comparing different pancreatic-enteric anastomosis techniques, an ideal method is still missing. This study aims to describe different management strategies and surgical techniques of standardized pancreatic-enteric anastomoses during an R-PD. This study reported the robotic technical steps of the modified end-to-side Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy, the Cattel-Warren duct-to-mucosa pancreatojejunostomy, with internal or external pancreatic duct stent, and the modified end-to-side, double-layer pancreogastrostomy. A dual-console da Vinci Xi Surgical System® (Intuitive Surgical Xi, Sunnyvale, CA) was used to perform all the R-PD. Different robotic pancreatic-enteric anastomosis techniques can be used during the reconstruction phase, possibly reproducing the open technique. The type of anastomosis and applied mitigation strategies should balance surgical strategy adaptability and operative technique standardization. R-PD should be performed in high-volume centers by surgeons with extensive experience in pancreatic and advanced MI surgery, enabling different but standardized anastomotic techniques based on patients' risk factors and intraoperative findings. Future studies on robotic pancreatic anastomosis should focus on personalized approaches after adequate risk stratification.

Pancreatic Enucleation Patients Share the Same Quality of Life as the General Population at Long-Term Follow-Up: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess short- and long-term outcomes including quality of life (QoL) following pancreatic enucleation (PE). BACKGROUND: PE is deemed to preserve both the endocrine and the exocrine function while ensuring radicality. However, to assess whether this reflects an actual benefit perceived by patients, QoL has to be considered. METHODS: Data from all consecutive patients undergoing PE from January 2010 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical outcomes were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and EORTC-C30 and the EORTC-Pan26 were administered as a cross-sectional assessment of QoL. A control group consisting of healthy individuals from the general population was obtained and matched using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients underwent PE using the open (59.3%), laparoscopic (27.2%), or robot-assisted (13.5%) approach. Sixty-five (80.2%) patients exhibited functioning/nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at final pathology.Surgical morbidity and complications of a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 were 48.1% and 16.0%, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 0%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying rates were 21.0%, 9.9%, and 4.9%, respectively.Patients returned the questionnaires after a median of 74.2 months from the index surgery. Postoperative new onset of diabetes mellitus (NODM) was observed in 5 subjects (7.1%), with age being an independent predictor. Seven patients (10.0%) developed postoperative exocrine insufficiency. At the analysis of QoL, all function and symptom scales were comparable between the 2 groups, except for 2 of the EORTC-Pan 26 symptom scales, ("worries for the future" and "body image", P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being associated with significant postoperative morbidity, PE provides excellent long-term outcomes. The risk of NODM is low and related to patient age, with QoL being comparable to the general population. Such information should drive surgeons to pursue PE whenever properly indicated.

401 consecutive minimally invasive distal pancreatectomies: lessons learned from 20 years of experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to discuss and report the trend, outcomes, and learning curve effect after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) at two high-volume centres. METHODS: Patients undergoing MIDP between January 1999 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified from prospectively maintained electronic databases. The entire cohort was divided into two groups constituting the "early" and "recent" phases. The learning curve effect was analyzed for laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). The follow-up was at least 2 years. RESULTS: The study population included 401 consecutive patients (LDP n = 300, RDP n = 101). Twelve surgeons performed MIDP during the study period. Although patients were more carefully selected in the early phase, in terms of median age (49 vs. 55 years, p = 0.026), ASA class higher than 2 (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.018), previous abdominal surgery (10% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.017), the recent phase had similar perioperative outcomes. The increase of experience in LDP was inversely associated with the operative time (240 vs 210 min, p < 0.001), morbidity rate (56.5% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.005), intra-abdominal collection (28.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.023), and length of stay (8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.009). Median survival in the PDAC subgroup was 53 months. CONCLUSION: In the setting of high-volume centres, the surgical training of MIDP is associated with acceptable rates of morbidity. The learning curve can be largely achieved by several team members, improving outcomes over time. Whenever possible resection of PDAC guarantees adequate oncological results and survival.

Modified Frailty Index to Assess Risk in Elderly Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: To compare the postoperative course of elderly patients (≥70 years) submitted to minimally invasive (MIDP) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and to evaluate if the modified Frailty Index (mFI) predicts the surgical course of elderly patients submitted to DP. METHODS: Data of patients aged ≥70 who underwent DP at a single institution between March 2011 and December 2019 were retrospectively retrieved. A 2:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. Then, postoperative complications were compared between the two groups (MIDP vs. ODP). Additionally, the entire cohort of DP elderly patients was stratified according to the mFI into three groups: non-frail (mFI = 0), mildly frail (mFI = 1/2), or severely frail (mFI = 3) and then compared. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were analyzed. After PSM, 40 MIDP and 80 ODP patients were identified. The complications considered stratified homogenously between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences. The severity of the postoperative course increased as mFI did among the three groups regarding any complication (p = 0.022), abdominal collection (p = 0.014), pulmonary complication (p = 0.001), postoperative confusion (p = 0.047), Clavien-Dindo severity ≥3 events (p = 0.036), and length of stay (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients can be safely submitted to MIDP. The mFI identifies frail elderly patients more prone to develop surgical and non-surgical complications after DP.

A randomized controlled trial of stapled versus ultrasonic transection in distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The pancreatic transection method during distal pancreatectomy is thought to influence postoperative fistula rates. Yet, the optimal technique for minimizing fistula occurrence is still unclear. The present randomized controlled trial compared stapled versus ultrasonic transection in elective distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy from July 2018 to July 2020 at two high-volume institutions were considered for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were contiguous organ resection and a parenchymal thickness > 17 mm on intraoperative ultrasound. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to stapled transection (Endo GIA Reinforced Reload with Tri-Staple Technology®) or ultrasonic transection (Harmonic Focus® + or Harmonic Ace® + shears). The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula. Secondary endpoints included overall complications, abdominal collections, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall, 72 patients were randomized in the stapled transection arm and 73 patients in the ultrasonic transection arm. Postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred in 23 patients (16%), with a comparable incidence between groups (12% in stapled transection versus 19% in ultrasonic dissection arm, p = 0.191). Overall complications did not differ substantially (35% in stapled transection versus 44% in ultrasonic transection arm, p = 0.170). There was an increased incidence of abdominal collections in the ultrasonic dissection group (32% versus 14%, p = 0.009), yet the need for percutaneous drain did not differ between randomization arms (p = 0.169). The median length of stay was 8 days in both groups (p = 0.880). Intraoperative blood transfusion was the only factor independently associated with postoperative pancreatic fistula on logistic regression analysis (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.2-20.0, p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: The present randomized controlled trial of stapled versus ultrasonic transection in elective distal pancreatectomy demonstrated no significant difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and no substantial clinical impact on other secondary endpoints.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

Endoscopic placement of pancreatic stent for "Deep" pancreatic enucleations operative technique and preliminary experience at two high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic enucleation (PE) is a viable option for the removal of non-malignant pancreatic masses leading to complete preservation of organ function. Nevertheless, PE is associated with substantial rates of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), particularly when the mass is close to the main pancreatic duct (MPD). Preoperative stenting of the MPD may prevent its injury when performing PE. This paper describes a novel technique of "deep" PE preceded by endoscopic stenting of the MPD. METHODS: From January 2017 to May 2019, patients with small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors proximal to the MPD were candidates for PE with previous stenting of the MPD at the University of Verona, Italy, and at the UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. The endoscopic stenting was scheduled either the day before or 3 weeks before surgery, depending on the participating institute. RESULTS: Ten patients were included in this pilot study. The endoscopic procedure was successful and well tolerated in all cases. Open, laparoscopic and robotic PE were performed. Seven patients had surgical complications. Among these, six developed a post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), but neither grade C fistulas nor disruptions of the MPD were detected. At pathology, a low grade pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor was confirmed in all cases. CONCLUSION: In the setting of high-volume centers, this procedure is safe, and it is associated with acceptable short-term surgical morbidity. The preoperative stenting of the MPD might extend the surgical indications for PE.

Implementation of a strategic preoperative surgical meeting to improve the level of care at a high-volume pancreatic center: a before-after analysis of 1000 consecutive cases.

The indication, planning, and risk analysis of a pancreatic surgical procedure have recently become increasingly complex. In December 2015, the "Pancreas Round" (PR) meeting was established at our institution to preoperatively review all scheduled cases with a specific focus on surgical indications and technical issues. The present study aims to determine the impact of the PR on the clinical practice in terms of avoiding unrequested laparotomies and anticipating intraoperative pitfalls. A "before-after" study was conducted by retrospectively comparing a pre-intervention period (9/2014-11/2015) to a prospectively assessed post-intervention one (12/2015-3/2017). Outcomes considered were explorative laparotomy (EL) occurrence and a "mismatch" between what was preoperatively expected by the PR and what was intraoperatively found. Of the 1057 patients included in the present study, 531 underwent surgery in the pre- and 526 in the post-intervention period, respectively. The EL rate was comparable between the two periods (15.4% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.123), despite the significant increase of surgical explorations after neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the post-intervention period (27% vs. 18%, p < 0.001). The "mismatch" rate between preoperative planning and intraoperative findings was significantly reduced in the post-intervention period (12.2% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.038) compared to the pre-PR period. In the setting of a high-volume center, a preoperative surgical meeting designed to review all cases scheduled for surgical exploration can enhance the level of care by addressing intraoperative pitfalls.

Full Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: Safety and Feasibility Analysis of a Multicenter Cohort of 236 Patients.

Introduction. Despite the widespread use of the robotic technology, only a few studies with small sample sizes report its application to pancreatic diseases treatment. Our aim is to present the results of a multicenter study on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP). Materials and Methods. All RDPs for benign, borderline, and malignant diseases performed in 5 referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated. Results. Two hundred thirty-six patients were included. Spleen preservation was performed in 114 cases (48.3%). Operative time was 277.8 ± 93.6 minutes. Progressive improvement in operative time was observed over the study period. Conversion rate was 6.3%. Morbidity occurred in 102 cases (43.2%), mainly due to grade A fistulas. Reoperation was required in 10 patients. Postoperatively, 2 patients died of sepsis due to a grade C fistula. Hospital readmission was necessary in 11 cases. A R0 resection was always achieved, with a mean number of 16.2 ± 15 harvested lymph nodes. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest RDP series. Safety and feasibility including the low conversion rate, the high spleen preservation rate, the adequate operative time, and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates confirm the validity of this technique. Appropriate oncological outcomes have been also obtained.

Minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic cancer has become very popular in modern pancreatic surgery. Evidence of the benefits of an MI approach are increasing thanks to prospective studies and randomized controlled studies.Areas covered: Agreement is lacking regarding the oncological feasibility of MIS for pancreatic cancer. Therefore, we performed a systematic review focusing on MIS for cancer of the head, body or tail of the pancreas. A total of 5237 studies were identified. After paper screening, 44 studies (22 on MI-pancreaticoduodenectomy and 22 on MI-distal pancreatectomy) met the eligibility criteria for the present review. The mean morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were 31% and 4.9%, while overall complication and mortality rates were 32,5% and 1%. Median overall survival after MIPD and MIDP was 21.9 and 29.8 months, respectively. Both surgical and oncological outcomes were comparable to the open approach.Expert opinion: MIS offers advantages to the surgeon thanks to the high definition of the surgical field and the freedom of fine movement of the robot but should be considered only in selected patients and in high volume centers. Further studies are needed to prove the intraoperative and postoperative advantages of MIS compared to open surgery.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs): a multicenter comparative study.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery has increasingly gained popularity as a treatment of choice for pancreatectomy with encouraging initial results in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). However, few data are available on the comparison between RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Our aim, thus, is to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes as well as total costs of RDP and LDP for pNETs. METHODS: All RDPs and LDPs for pNETs performed in four referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and total costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-six RDPs and 85 LDPs were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. Operative time was 36.5 min longer in the RDP group (p = 0.009) but comparable to LDP after removing the docking time (247.9 vs 233.7 min; p = 0.6). LDP related to a lower spleen preservation rate (44.7% vs 65.3%; p < 0.0001) and higher blood loss (239.7 ± 112 vs 162.5 ± 98 cc; p < 0.0001). Advantages in operative time for RDP were documented in case of the spleen preservation procedures (265 ± 41.52 vs 291 ± 23 min; p = 0.04). Conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, and pancreatic fistula rate were similar between the two groups, as well as histopathological data, OS, and DFS. Significant advantages were evidenced for LDP regarding mean total costs (9235 (± 1935) € vs 11,226 (± 2365) €; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both RDP and LDP are safe and efficacious for pNETs treatment. However, RDP offers advantages with a higher spleen preservation rate and lower blood loss. Costs still remain the main limitation of the robotic approach.

Dislocation of intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: results of a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: The use of intra-abdominal drains after major surgical procedures represents a well-established but controversial practice. No data are available regarding both the occurrence and the potential impact of their postoperative accidental dislocation. The aim of this study is to assess the actual rate of dislocation of intra-abdominal drains postoperatively and to evaluate its clinical impact. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study using major pancreatic surgery as a model. Ninety-one consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) underwent low-dose, non-enhanced computed tomography (LDCT) on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3 in a blinded fashion to assess the position of drains. We compared the outcomes of patients with dislocated and correctly placed drains. RESULTS: Overall, drains were dislocated in 30 patients (33%), without differences between PD and DP. Most of dislocations were already present on POD 1 (77%). Postoperative complications occurred in 57% of patients, and the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was 27%. The dislocated cohort had lesser morbidity (40% vs. 66%; relative risk (RR), 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.86; P = 0.020), and the rate of POPF (3% vs. 39%, respectively; RR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.42; P < 0.001). After PD, patients with dislocated drains had a shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 20 days; P = 0.015). No significant differences in terms of need for percutaneous drainage procedures, abdominal collections, or grade C POPFs were found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dislocation of intra-abdominal drains is an early and frequent event after major pancreatic resection. Its occurrence might protect against the negative effects of maintaining drainage, eventually leading to better postoperative outcomes. This data reinforces the knowledge that surgical drains might be detrimental in selected cases.

Management of portal annular pancreas during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Portal annular pancreas (PAP) is a pancreatic congenital anomaly consisting of pancreatic parenchyma encircling the portal vein and/or the superior mesenteric vein. It has been reported that the risk of developing a post-operative pancreatic fistula is higher following pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with PAP, probably because of the possibility of leaving undrained a portion of pancreatic parenchyma during the reconstructive phase. Few manuscripts have reported a surgical technique of pancreaticoduodenectomy in case of PAP, herein we report the first case of a patient with PAP undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Is there a role for near-infrared technology in laparoscopic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors? Results of the COLPAN "colour-and-resect the pancreas" study.

BACKGROUND: The intraoperative identification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) is of utmost importance to drive their laparoscopic resection. Near-infrared (NIR) surgery has emerged as a new technique for localizing tumors or neoplastic tissue. This study aimed to explore the results of the application of NIR in the laparoscopic resection of PanNETs. METHODS: Per protocol we enrolled ten subjects undergoing laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for PanNET from March 2016 to October 2016. During surgery, the patients were injected with indocyanine green dye (ICG, 25 mg given in 5 boli of 5 mg each). The switch-activation of NIR was performed to identify PanNETs. An ex-post analysis of the images was realized using ImageJ Software® to calculate the fluorescence signal. RESULTS: NIR imaging identified all ten PanNETs. Nine (90%) laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and one (10%) laparoscopic enucleation were performed. The mean maximum tumor dimension was 2.4 cm (range 1-4 cm). Eight non-functioning PanNETs (80%) and two insulinomas (20%) were found at the final pathology. Nine out of ten (90%) PanNETs were detected after the second ICG bolus. The mean latency time was 80 s and the mean visibility time was 220 s. The peak of tumor visualization was reached 20 min after the last bolus. This finding was confirmed by the ex-post analysis of the fluorescence signal (mean signal-to-background ratio of 7.7, p = 0.001). NIR identified two additional lesions, which turned out to be normal lymph nodes at final pathology. A fluorescent signal was identified at the bed of the enucleation, and thus, a further exeresis was performed and final pathology revealed that is was residual neoplastic tissue. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study shows that NIR with ICG can have a role in laparoscopic pancreatic resection of PanNETs. Further studies are needed to assess the proper setting and role of this new and promising technology.